click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121209
20121209
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
's turn to the global economy. associated press reporting that china has surpassed the u.s. as the leading trade partner. this comes as china announces the inflation rate rose 2% one month alone. sign of an economy gaining strength. what does it mean? brenda buttner, anchor of "bulls and bears." i was reading this article where shoppers in beijing have seen the prices of vegetables double in one week alone. inflation is a problem over there. what is causing it? >> basically it's not a bad problem, it's growth. china has numbers we can only dream of, growth of about 8%, we're below 2%. their factory output was up 10%. retail sales, 15%. so it is basically growth driven not supply side driven which is the kind of inflation you want to see. it's only 2%, that is well below the target of 4% is. it came down from 6.7%. >> gregg: so it's an issue not really a problem and outweighed by the huge growth. how does the inflation american consumers if at all? >> we buy a lot from china. it may be that some of the input may be more expensive. we may have to pay more, but it's more that china is becomin
to have in the euro zone and the energy needs in china and india and industrialized nations. what do you think is the biggest threat from the outside to the u.s. economy? >> the fiscal cliff. first of all i think there are issues that are beginning to improve and, you know, whether you look at the euro zone which is making progress, gradually, laboriously and certainly improving and with good numbers because if you look at thinge ia because if you look at thinge a greg gat euro zone debt, and you have political stability back now that the new team is in place so the volatility and the instability factors that are outside have reduced. the real threat that we have at the moment is really here with us and that can be addressed. >> but when you look at, i mean i understood that the european banks had sort of downsized or downgraded what they thought would be growth. you've got more than 11% unemployment in the euro zone, which is a good deal higher than here. >> yeah yeah. >> are those things threats to the u.s. economy or do you think the u.s. economy now is destabilizing or has the poten
, those numbers are better. china's numbers have improved lately, and you have political stability back. so the volatility of the instability factors that are outside have reduced overtime. the real threat that we have is here, with us, and that can be addressed. >> but when you look at -- i understand that bangs being downsides our down afraided, you have more than 11% unemployment in the euro zone, which is a good deal higher than here, are those things threats to the u.s. economy, or do you think it is now destabilizing, or has the potential to destabilize the world economy? >> i think because it is relatively closed, it trades with itself and immediate neighbors, is less vulnerable to what happens outside, for instance in europe. but, the consequences would be relatively minor. it is more exposed to it's own difficulties, and it's own issues, than to what happens elsewhere in the world, because it is such a large player. >> so we're our own 5,000 pound gor ri gorilla. >> let me ask you as a final question, january 2nd arrives, no deal, what will we notice first? >> lack of citizen,
, china and india in particular are actually the source of most of the increasing greenhouse fasts that we've seen in recent years and the united states is at a level of greenhouse gas emissions it hasn't been at in over a decade. so, partially due to our own repressed economy, but partialingly due to the fact that you're talking about regulations and alternative fuels, the u.s. economy and other industriallized economies have actually seen their emissions stabilize or even fall over the past decade. >> yeah, and china, they're a big polluter. i mean, if you go into a store and you break something, you pay for it. so, if we can prove that a country is a big polluter, why shouldn't they pay? >> the problem is that even if the united states, all the other stilllized countries complied with what the secretary-general was talking about, it actually wouldn't do anything in terms of greenhouse gas emissions because the growth in the greenhouse gas emissions is coming with the developing world and it would be almost symbolic gesture in terms of global warming which is their theory and do nothing
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)